Spencer Pierce v. Richard Long ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SPENCER PIERCE, No. 10-16692
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00202-RCJ-
RAM
v.
RICHARD LONG; BRUCE MEMORANDUM *
BANNISTER; JOSEPH BRACKBILL;
HOWARD SKOLNIK; E. K.
MCDANIEL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued & Submitted December 7, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, Senior District
Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Spencer Pierce appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment based
on its holding that none of the defendants-appellees were deliberately indifferent to
his medical needs. Because the parties are well acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of this case, we repeat them only as necessary to illuminate this
disposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Deliberate indifference requires an individual defendant to act in a manner
akin to criminal recklessness. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Even
grossly negligent conduct will not support a claim. Toguchi v. Soon Hwang
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900
F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). The record does not contain evidence sufficient
to support Pierce’s allegations that any of the defendants-appellees were
deliberately indifferent to Pierce’s medical needs.
With respect to Pierce’s finger injury, Dr. Long’s treatment does not appear
to be negligent in any way, and no reasonable juror could believe that Dr. Long
prevented Pierce from receiving treatment in light of Dr. Long’s recommendations.
Director Skolnik and Warden McDaniel were not subjectively aware of Pierce’s
serious medical needs. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Dr. Bannister and Brackbill
properly informed Pierce in connection with the terms of his grievance that he was
not allowed to possess tape because of security concerns.
2
With respect to Pierce’s pectoral injury, the record shows that Pierce
disagreed with his course of treatment. However, “a difference of medical opinion
. . . cannot support a claim of deliberate indifference.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060.
Finally, because the district court considered the evidence Pierce raised in
his objection to the magistrate’s report and recommendations prior to entering
summary judgment, the district court properly denied Pierce’s motion for
reconsideration.
AFFIRMED.
3